Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

You truly are a stupid bastard aren't you?
"Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years. "
"Saddam Hussein - who has ruled Iraq since 1979 - was the only candidate."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'

So much for their elections under Saddam.

There is no fear here. I haven't shown fear since I was a child, a small child.

And you simply will not open your eyes to the evidence because to have a terrorist attack on Obamas watch is just impossible or what? I don't care nor do i (so far) blame any American for this attack other than the Major himself. But this was an attack based upon his religion and it was an attack based upon terror. Try thinking for your self for just once, I know it will be difficult to change the channel from MSNBC, but for your own sanity make the move.


What part of "Iraq had a Constitution and elections before Saddam was even born" confuses you? Read it again.

Then you bring up obama and msnbc? You bring up a ******* sell out and a bullshit msm? How ******* pathetic do you have to be to do that? I can't stand either one. You get paralyzed when you can't debate inside a Left v Right paradigm eh?

Have you studied Iraqi Elections? Obviously not.

Under the Iraqi constitution of 1925, Iraq was a constitutional monarchy, with a bicameral legislature consisting of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Senate. The lower house was elected every four years by manhood suffrage (that is, women did not vote). The first Parliament met in 1925. Ten general elections were held before the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958. The electoral system, however, was manipulated by the King and his advisors, who were Sunni Muslims, to ensure that the Shi'a majority were prevented from taking power.

Between 1958 and 2003 Iraq was ruled by a series of military regimes, all dominated by Iraqi Arabs, particularly after the emergence of the Ba'ath Party in the early 1960's. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who came to power in 1979, Kurds were persecuted. Furthermore, Arabs who were non-Ba'athist or non-Arab inclined (most notably those of Shi'ite faith) were also persecuted. Saddam's regime was largely run by Arabs from Tikrit (a mainly Sunni area), his home region. On October 16, 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995. The United States and others outside Iraq said the vote lacked any credibility. Stories later surfaced stating that voting was compulsory and that the "yes" box had already been checked for voters in advance.

Some history of Free elections there. MMM MMMM MMMM

Holy shit you are a shady jackass! In a different thread you claimed Iraq had •NEVER• had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion. I responded by linking the info you just posted from 1925 and now you want to pretend you are the one who first posted it? That's some seriously shitbag shuffling.
 
What part of "Iraq had a Constitution and elections before Saddam was even born" confuses you? Read it again.

Then you bring up obama and msnbc? You bring up a ******* sell out and a bullshit msm? How ******* pathetic do you have to be to do that? I can't stand either one. You get paralyzed when you can't debate inside a Left v Right paradigm eh?

Have you studied Iraqi Elections? Obviously not.

Under the Iraqi constitution of 1925, Iraq was a constitutional monarchy, with a bicameral legislature consisting of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Senate. The lower house was elected every four years by manhood suffrage (that is, women did not vote). The first Parliament met in 1925. Ten general elections were held before the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958. The electoral system, however, was manipulated by the King and his advisors, who were Sunni Muslims, to ensure that the Shi'a majority were prevented from taking power.

Between 1958 and 2003 Iraq was ruled by a series of military regimes, all dominated by Iraqi Arabs, particularly after the emergence of the Ba'ath Party in the early 1960's. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who came to power in 1979, Kurds were persecuted. Furthermore, Arabs who were non-Ba'athist or non-Arab inclined (most notably those of Shi'ite faith) were also persecuted. Saddam's regime was largely run by Arabs from Tikrit (a mainly Sunni area), his home region. On October 16, 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995. The United States and others outside Iraq said the vote lacked any credibility. Stories later surfaced stating that voting was compulsory and that the "yes" box had already been checked for voters in advance.

Some history of Free elections there. MMM MMMM MMMM

Holy shit you are a shady jackass! In a different thread you claimed Iraq had •NEVER• had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion. I responded by linking the info you just posted from 1925 and now you want to pretend you are the one who first posted it? That's some seriously shitbag shuffling.

You did? Oh well, I guess it wasn't important at the time. Not that you give a rats ass about Iraqis having any semblance of freedom.
 
Have you studied Iraqi Elections? Obviously not.

Under the Iraqi constitution of 1925, Iraq was a constitutional monarchy, with a bicameral legislature consisting of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Senate. The lower house was elected every four years by manhood suffrage (that is, women did not vote). The first Parliament met in 1925. Ten general elections were held before the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958. The electoral system, however, was manipulated by the King and his advisors, who were Sunni Muslims, to ensure that the Shi'a majority were prevented from taking power.

Between 1958 and 2003 Iraq was ruled by a series of military regimes, all dominated by Iraqi Arabs, particularly after the emergence of the Ba'ath Party in the early 1960's. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who came to power in 1979, Kurds were persecuted. Furthermore, Arabs who were non-Ba'athist or non-Arab inclined (most notably those of Shi'ite faith) were also persecuted. Saddam's regime was largely run by Arabs from Tikrit (a mainly Sunni area), his home region. On October 16, 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995. The United States and others outside Iraq said the vote lacked any credibility. Stories later surfaced stating that voting was compulsory and that the "yes" box had already been checked for voters in advance.

Some history of Free elections there. MMM MMMM MMMM

Holy shit you are a shady jackass! In a different thread you claimed Iraq had •NEVER• had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion. I responded by linking the info you just posted from 1925 and now you want to pretend you are the one who first posted it? That's some seriously shitbag shuffling.

You did? Oh well, I guess it wasn't important at the time. Not that you give a rats ass about Iraqis having any semblance of freedom.


Funny how it wasn't important when I showed you didn't know what you were talking about.....then you round it off very nicely with a stupid and false jab. When I was in we pwned E-7s like you on a regular basis. Glad to see you are consistent whether on or off the field.
 
Holy shit you are a shady jackass! In a different thread you claimed Iraq had •NEVER• had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion. I responded by linking the info you just posted from 1925 and now you want to pretend you are the one who first posted it? That's some seriously shitbag shuffling.

You did? Oh well, I guess it wasn't important at the time. Not that you give a rats ass about Iraqis having any semblance of freedom.


Funny how it wasn't important when I showed you didn't know what you were talking about.....then you round it off very nicely with a stupid and false jab. When I was in we pwned E-7s like you on a regular basis. Glad to see you are consistent whether on or off the field.

I will take a guess that PWNED means owned.

If that is correct then I can only surmise that you are a ******* liar.

have a wonderful day.
 
Have you studied Iraqi Elections? Obviously not.

Under the Iraqi constitution of 1925, Iraq was a constitutional monarchy, with a bicameral legislature consisting of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Senate. The lower house was elected every four years by manhood suffrage (that is, women did not vote). The first Parliament met in 1925. Ten general elections were held before the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958. The electoral system, however, was manipulated by the King and his advisors, who were Sunni Muslims, to ensure that the Shi'a majority were prevented from taking power.

Between 1958 and 2003 Iraq was ruled by a series of military regimes, all dominated by Iraqi Arabs, particularly after the emergence of the Ba'ath Party in the early 1960's. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who came to power in 1979, Kurds were persecuted. Furthermore, Arabs who were non-Ba'athist or non-Arab inclined (most notably those of Shi'ite faith) were also persecuted. Saddam's regime was largely run by Arabs from Tikrit (a mainly Sunni area), his home region. On October 16, 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995. The United States and others outside Iraq said the vote lacked any credibility. Stories later surfaced stating that voting was compulsory and that the "yes" box had already been checked for voters in advance.

Some history of Free elections there. MMM MMMM MMMM

Holy shit you are a shady jackass! In a different thread you claimed Iraq had •NEVER• had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion. I responded by linking the info you just posted from 1925 and now you want to pretend you are the one who first posted it? That's some seriously shitbag shuffling.

You did? Oh well, I guess it wasn't important at the time. Not that you give a rats ass about Iraqis having any semblance of freedom.

because a puppet government and martial law is freedom
 
Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 43 casualties of the shooting comprised 13 dead (12 soldiers; 1 army civilian employee); 30 others with gunshot wounds were hospitalized.[1][4]

Ten of the injured were treated at Scott & White Memorial Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in Temple, Texas.[29] Seven more wounded victims were taken to Metroplex Adventist Hospital in Killeen.[29] Eight others received hospital treatment for shock.[4] Of those wounded at least 17 are servicemembers, and at least 7 are civilians


Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.
 
Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 43 casualties of the shooting comprised 13 dead (12 soldiers; 1 army civilian employee); 30 others with gunshot wounds were hospitalized.[1][4]

Ten of the injured were treated at Scott & White Memorial Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in Temple, Texas.[29] Seven more wounded victims were taken to Metroplex Adventist Hospital in Killeen.[29] Eight others received hospital treatment for shock.[4] Of those wounded at least 17 are servicemembers, and at least 7 are civilians


Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.

Generally when We kill Civilians, It's more unintentional. Terrorists hide within them, behind them, even set them up. We target Combatants.

Terrorists target Non Combatants.

Rest Now. Later we'll get into finger painting, and then We are going to give toilet training another try, don't despair.
 
Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 43 casualties of the shooting comprised 13 dead (12 soldiers; 1 army civilian employee); 30 others with gunshot wounds were hospitalized.[1][4]

Ten of the injured were treated at Scott & White Memorial Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in Temple, Texas.[29] Seven more wounded victims were taken to Metroplex Adventist Hospital in Killeen.[29] Eight others received hospital treatment for shock.[4] Of those wounded at least 17 are servicemembers, and at least 7 are civilians


Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.

it depends on the perspective. to the families/close people of the civilians we kill, we are terrorists, the people who kill our civilians are terrorists to us. pick a side i guess
 
Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 43 casualties of the shooting comprised 13 dead (12 soldiers; 1 army civilian employee); 30 others with gunshot wounds were hospitalized.[1][4]

Ten of the injured were treated at Scott & White Memorial Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in Temple, Texas.[29] Seven more wounded victims were taken to Metroplex Adventist Hospital in Killeen.[29] Eight others received hospital treatment for shock.[4] Of those wounded at least 17 are servicemembers, and at least 7 are civilians


Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

Intentions. Warnings beforehand. You know, things like that.
 
Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 43 casualties of the shooting comprised 13 dead (12 soldiers; 1 army civilian employee); 30 others with gunshot wounds were hospitalized.[1][4]

Ten of the injured were treated at Scott & White Memorial Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in Temple, Texas.[29] Seven more wounded victims were taken to Metroplex Adventist Hospital in Killeen.[29] Eight others received hospital treatment for shock.[4] Of those wounded at least 17 are servicemembers, and at least 7 are civilians


Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.


Read the post again einstein. I never said they were collateral damage. I pointed out that is a common term used when our military kills civilians. It doesn't matter his card had "SoA" on it either. There are plenty of Christians who say they are Soldiers of Christ.
 
Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.

Generally when We kill Civilians, It's more unintentional. Terrorists hide within them, behind them, even set them up. We target Combatants.

Terrorists target Non Combatants.

Rest Now. Later we'll get into finger painting, and then We are going to give toilet training another try, don't despair.

You should pay more attention instead of thinking about finger painting. I pointed out hasan's target were soldiers on a military base. But you just proved by your own words hasan didn't commit terrorism because he targeted combatants.
 
Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 43 casualties of the shooting comprised 13 dead (12 soldiers; 1 army civilian employee); 30 others with gunshot wounds were hospitalized.[1][4]

Ten of the injured were treated at Scott & White Memorial Hospital, a Level 1 trauma center in Temple, Texas.[29] Seven more wounded victims were taken to Metroplex Adventist Hospital in Killeen.[29] Eight others received hospital treatment for shock.[4] Of those wounded at least 17 are servicemembers, and at least 7 are civilians


Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

Intentions. Warnings beforehand. You know, things like that.

By all means show us the evidence.
 
Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

So any civilians killed at Fort Hood are collateral damage according to you. Note your "whacko" had business cards claiming to be an agent of Allah.

it depends on the perspective. to the families/close people of the civilians we kill, we are terrorists, the people who kill our civilians are terrorists to us. pick a side i guess

Looky here! An honest answer! Awesome!
 
Why is it when we kill civilians it's called "collateral damage" but when a whacko targets a military base it's terrorism?

Intentions. Warnings beforehand. You know, things like that.

By all means show us the evidence.

It would be 'ever so cool' if you ever did. :rolleyes:

Even in the midst of an anti-Iraq war screed, the Times admits:

U.S. Quietly Issues Estimate Of Iraqi Civilian Casualties - New York Times

...Civilians are important allies for states trying to prevail in wars against violent insurgencies, and the inclusion of the figures in the report seemed to be an acknowledgment of that, Ms. Sewall said.

American forces take measures to avoid civiliancasualties, warning local residents with leaflets and loudspeaker announcements before they begin operations against insurgents.

...
 
The MSM circling the wagons about Hasan's stressful job, his free MD, his admitted anti-American speeches, was why? Why wasn't the attack called terrorism by a terrorist? Political-correctness?
 
15th post
Intentions. Warnings beforehand. You know, things like that.

By all means show us the evidence.

It would be 'ever so cool' if you ever did. :rolleyes:

Even in the midst of an anti-Iraq war screed, the Times admits:

U.S. Quietly Issues Estimate Of Iraqi Civilian Casualties - New York Times

...Civilians are important allies for states trying to prevail in wars against violent insurgencies, and the inclusion of the figures in the report seemed to be an acknowledgment of that, Ms. Sewall said.

American forces take measures to avoid civiliancasualties, warning local residents with leaflets and loudspeaker announcements before they begin operations against insurgents.

...


So now an opinion from the NYT counts as evidence? If you truly believe we drop leaflets and make announcements then you're unbelievably gullible.
 
You did? Oh well, I guess it wasn't important at the time. Not that you give a rats ass about Iraqis having any semblance of freedom.


Funny how it wasn't important when I showed you didn't know what you were talking about.....then you round it off very nicely with a stupid and false jab. When I was in we pwned E-7s like you on a regular basis. Glad to see you are consistent whether on or off the field.

I will take a guess that PWNED means owned.

If that is correct then I can only surmise that you are a ******* liar.

have a wonderful day.

I will quote the relevant statements.


SFC Ollie:

"Yes they have a constitution and democratic elections, For the first time ever."


I responded with the following information:



Well, Bernard Lewis, the great expert at Princeton [University] on the Middle East, and I wrote a piece in The Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago that said why not use the 1925 constitution and appoint the governing council as the senate under the constitution? It's appointed by a constitutional monarch. And there's an elected parliament under it. They can amend the constitution."
CNN.com - Woolsey: Why not use 1925 constitution? - Nov. 12, 2003
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1701263-post382.html


Someone sure is a ******* liar.
 
Have you studied Iraqi Elections? Obviously not.

Under the Iraqi constitution of 1925, Iraq was a constitutional monarchy, with a bicameral legislature consisting of an elected House of Representatives and an appointed Senate. The lower house was elected every four years by manhood suffrage (that is, women did not vote). The first Parliament met in 1925. Ten general elections were held before the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958. The electoral system, however, was manipulated by the King and his advisors, who were Sunni Muslims, to ensure that the Shi'a majority were prevented from taking power.

Between 1958 and 2003 Iraq was ruled by a series of military regimes, all dominated by Iraqi Arabs, particularly after the emergence of the Ba'ath Party in the early 1960's. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who came to power in 1979, Kurds were persecuted. Furthermore, Arabs who were non-Ba'athist or non-Arab inclined (most notably those of Shi'ite faith) were also persecuted. Saddam's regime was largely run by Arabs from Tikrit (a mainly Sunni area), his home region. On October 16, 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995. The United States and others outside Iraq said the vote lacked any credibility. Stories later surfaced stating that voting was compulsory and that the "yes" box had already been checked for voters in advance.

Some history of Free elections there. MMM MMMM MMMM

Holy shit you are a shady jackass! In a different thread you claimed Iraq had •NEVER• had a Constitution or elections prior to our invasion. I responded by linking the info you just posted from 1925 and now you want to pretend you are the one who first posted it? That's some seriously shitbag shuffling.

You did? Oh well, I guess it wasn't important at the time. Not that you give a rats ass about Iraqis having any semblance of freedom.


Are the Iraqi's really better off and do they really have more "freedom"? Wouldn't it have been better had they toppled Saddam on their own?

Sometimes I think the insistence on "freedom" and "democracy" - defined by "free elections" and an elected form of government is naive. The idea that free elections means a free society and a democracy is simplistic. Democracy requires the presence of more then a constitution and an election. Witness Afghanistan's fraud filled election. Witness the level of corrruption in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And worse - the decrease in rights for women in Iraq. Freedom seems to have brought about worse for them.

Iraq also suffers from high levels of factional violence and intimidation, a lack of trust in the government's ability to protect it's people and too many independent militias.

You can't export "democracy" - it has to come from within and it requires certain institutions in place for it to succeed. Institutions to protect against fraud and corruption, provide accountability, protect minorities, promote and educated populace, an independent judiciary....even, as in the case with the U.S. - putting the military under the command of a civilian. There's a lot of checks and balances in the system that matter more then "free elections" because without them, the elections aren't so "free" the government not so "democratic".
 

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom